Ridiculous proposed restrictions by Auckland Transport

Politicians are upset that an Auckland Transport bylaw may ban mobile election hoardings and put restrictions on others.

The council transport organisation, which is trying to standardise bylaws in time for this year’s local elections, says it does not believe vehicles used solely for political advertising should be allowed on city roads or in carparks.

But Labour’s transport spokesman, Phil Twyford, suggested yesterday that the organisation should concentrate on making its trains run on time. And Act’s John Boscawen said his party would oppose any such restriction “on people’s freedom of speech and to express, and to generate interest in the political process”.

Auckland Transport says in a position paper seeking public submissions by February 28 that its bylaws should support an objective of making roads effective for carrying people and goods.

It proposes that election signs be allowed on vehicles used for ordinary travel but not for the sole purpose of advertising, such as when towing trailer-mounted hoardings.

This is pathetic and ridiculous Auckland has almost 1.4 million people living in it, and around 1.1 million vehicles. And Auckland Transport are trying to restrict cars used for political advertising, which would probably reduce the number of cars at any one time by oh around six or so.

As Phil Twyford says, they should focus on making the trains run on time, and not becoming political speech commissars.

Related Stories

Comments (11)

Yup, that’s the problem with local councils. Not enough work to do, so they like to invent new work. There’s nothing like deciding that you personally don’t like something therefore it should be illegal.

You know, “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re just advertising.”

Next step after that is “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re just cruising / hooning.”
Then “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re going to the shop, and you should only shop once a week”
And then “I think your car is too big”
And then “Unless you’re one of the favoured few, you must ride public transport, so as to save the roads for those with real need”

I predict a serious revolt against the super city soon. Meddling in the job of central government while so much needs to be done within its own patch is just one of its manifold failings.

The transition agency that set it up the predicted the council wages bill would fall from $604 million to $513 million as a result of reducing staff numbers. Instead, it was rose to $670 million in the last financial year. Meanwhile basic services such as garbage and water are now billed separately from rates, charged by privileged entities with no accountability and no competition. Go figure!

Add to that the debacle of the one of world’s most infrequent, unreliable and costly public transport services.

Bring back the 8 smaller but manageable and accountable mini-cities that preceded it, I say. Big is not necessarily beautiful. Thanks for nothing, Rodney Hide.

barry

Nothing wrong with the structure. The problem is who the voters voted for. You can’t blame the structure for the fact that Aucklanders elected a mad lefty with aspirations to expand the size of the council.

As others have said, it’s not the structure. These types of issues pervade local government. Under the reforms, the wage bill did drop immeasurably. But there is no desire by the governing body to cut costs. It’s up to them now, not anyone else.